You are here

[Editor’s note: Attempts to arrive at a mutually agreed upon Memo of Understanding for how the Hot Springs Village animal shelter will be operated have reached an impasse. This guest editorial reflects the opinions of the columnist, an Animal Welfare League member.]

All Hot Springs Village Animal Welfare League members and the community at large are asked to come to a town-hall meeting Sept. 20 at 1 p.m. at the Coronado Community Center. At stake is the AWL’s role in the operation of the Village animal shelter.

At the Sept. 20 meeting, we will discuss the current issues and negotiations with the Property Owners’ Association and encourage residents to participate in the development of a united response to the POA board of directors’ demands.

On Aug. 15, the POA board refused to consider a request made by the league to modify the existing Article 5, Chapter 3, of the Declaration – the “regulation and control of pets” policy. The current policy defines the facility, or “premises,” as a detention shelter for impounding animals.

During the Aug. 15 board discussion, director Tom Bryant had it right. The conflict between the POA and the AWL has been going on far too long. He was also right when he stated most city animal-control operations and shelters handle adoptions of companion animals and provide and pay for the food and medication.

This is not true at the Hot Springs Village detention shelter. These services are paid for by the Animal Welfare League, and in many cases, provided by volunteers. Unfortunately, the POA views the league as a tenant – not a partner.

Board director Jim Owens said he believed the AWL is behaving like unions he dealt with during his career by holding out for its demands. The truth is the league has demanded nothing from the POA other than to be treated as an equal partner.

The POA and the AWL should have mutually agreed-upon objectives aimed at reuniting animals with their owners, and finding good homes for as many of the adoptable animals that have been either lost, surrendered, or abandoned in the Village.

Furthermore, the companion animals in the detention shelter should be treated as victims, not rule breakers in need of being imprisoned.

One POA director expressed concern that he did not know what the league’s board wanted, and asked for their request in writing. This concern is odd. On July 11, the AWL board delivered to the POA board’s work session a one-page memo outlining four modifications to the Declaration policy and asked the POA board to consider these modifications as an alternative to a contract.

This extraordinary step was taken when it became clear to the AWL board that a Memo of Understanding with enforceable covenants could not be developed with the POA’s management.

As a solution, the AWL board decided to ask the Village’s elected representatives – the POA board directors – to modify the existing Article 5 policy on companion animals.

The one-page memo was the “written request.”

Instead of responding to the request, the POA board is now requiring the AWL board take the contract issues to its members. The AWL board plans to do so on Sept. 20 and to advise the members that this Memo of Understanding has been rejected, to date, primarily because it provides no remedies to the league if the POA violates any of its provisions.

Yes, POA board president Jerry Kosoglow, I too have doubts that an agreement can be reached, but not because the league’s board and its members have not tried. It is because the POA board chooses not to listen to the goals and objectives of the league and examine what the POA does to inhibit the achievement of the league’s objectives.

I invite AWL members and the community to come to the Sept. 20 special town-hall meeting at 1 p.m. in the Coronado Community Center to hear, in detail, the ongoing operational issues and to participate in a response to the POA.